Yeah, I'm sure some of you have magical instant-loading PDF viewers of some sort, but for those of us stuck on sluggish Windows machines using the incredibly-slow-to-load, lock-up-my-computer-while-it's-loading, Adobe Acrobat Reader...
could we please add a [PDF] warning to links to PDFs?
It may not be *quite* as bad as goatse, but it still merits a warning...
Frankly, I don't give a shit about baseball, but it's food for thought. Consider this:
What if there was an illegal supplement you could take that would dramatically increase your programming ability? If it let you double your salary, would you accept a little risk... say, increased risk of brain cancer down the road?
OK, now what if a substantial number of your peers were using it... so much so that you might have trouble finding work, or at least have to accept a reduced salary, if you were unable or unwilling to use it as well?
Maybe the typical Slashdot reader won't care, but we're saddled with Outlook/Exchange at my company, which are big, slow, resource-hungry, funky piles of poo IMHO.
So if this will end up helping improve those in any way, I'm in favor of it:-)
Re: "If our implementation differs from the spec, our implementation is correct, the spec is wrong", no such statement is there, probably because it's unnecessary, under the circumstances....
But the slightest inclusion of spyware would kill the technololgy in a flash.
No argument here.
The thing is, there is not spyware being included with the Flash download -- RTFA and all will be made clear, but in a nutshell: you are given the option (checked by default) to also download and install the Yahoo Toolbar.
Nothing's being installed secretly. Nothing is being installed without the user's explicit knowledge and consent. And regardless of your opinion of the usefulness of Yahoo Toolbar, I don't think any reputable authority is suggesting that it is "spyware". (In fact, it actually claims to include antispyware features, IIRC...)
Look, I work for Macromedia, so I'm hardly a disinterested observer, but saying "Flash blows" (or "technology X blows", for that matter) is hardly what I'd call a useful contribution to this discussion.
Dislike Flash because it's not open-source and thus is unacceptable to your personal philosophy? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because it isn't available for your platform of choice (eg, 64-bit Linux)? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because it (like every other web technology) can be misused to make really annoying ads? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because of some other, specific reason? Fine, that's a point you should make.
But for all the folks out there who simply have juvenile comments on the order of "Flash sucks"... well, I guess I just don't understand what you think you're contributing to the topic.
(For the record: yeah, I have AdBlock installed in Firefox, to block annoying ads of all sorts.)
You seem to think they would WANT to sell a media-less product that has absolutely minimal costs to them...;-)
Yep. IANAB (I am not a businessman), I am just a humble engineer, but I have this crazy idea that an industry that suddenly finds that its cost-of-goods has dropped to essentially zero (or reasonably close) should be dancing about, singing hallelujah. As someone pointed out, the music industry seems to think it's in the business of selling small, round, plastic discs.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, piracy and all that. It happens. Deal with it. The software industry has.
IMHO, the prices are too high already, at least for me.
At a buck a track, I *might* consider buying 'em if they were losslessly encoded at at-least CD quality, and included metadata, "liner notes", etc... basically all the goods I can get at roughly the same price in a physical CD.
But in a lossy, DRM-infested mess... why the hell would I pay the same amount?
If they get the price down to 25 cents... or maybe even 50!... then I might consider it. Until then, it's back to the used-CD bins at Amoeba for me.
Perhaps if you weren't Anonymous Coward I might take you seriously. As it is... foo.
Yeah, I worked (past tense) for a "piddly satellite office" (EA Pacific, before they got absorbed into EA LA). I wonder: does "satellite" status imply that it's okay to screw the employees?
OK, I googled for it, and the most recent relevant hit was from March 5, 2003, in the Flash 6 Player for Linux. There was already a patch available. And in any event, even that is not "malware", which implies a deliberate malicious intent.
Don't trust the statistics from Macromedia? Fine, google for independent audits. They will all confirm the over-90% figure.
As far as "locking you in to proprietary formats", that's a valid point to debate, but not the point at issue, which is claiming malware is associated with the Flash Player...
Get a clue. I was a lead engineer at EA, and it sucked. Worst job I ever had. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that you could possibly have an engineering job there.
Perhaps the rampant security exploits? Or the associated malware?
There's no malware associated with Flash, nor am I aware of a single active security exploit. Perhaps you could back up this assertion with some evidence?
Or maybe that it's not a standard and nobody really wants to install that crap?
Imagine a World of Warcraft party where you could all play in one room - this box is perfect for that.
Is it? I see that it meets the minimum requirements for WoW on the Mac, but will it run it well?
In particular, will a 32MB video card provide decent graphics, or would it be one of those usual painful "minimum" specs that will run, but horribly?
Yep, and that's why I haven't bothered going to HDTV yet... no way will I go back to a pre-Tivo existence, and until I can get a Tivo (or genuine equivalent, not the piece-o-crap cable box) that does HD well, there's just no point.
A lot of people expect their bosses to read their minds - if you work an 80 hour week without giving "feedback," they assume you're OK with working 80 hour weeks.
Unless you've actually worked at EA -- and clearly, you haven't -- you should probably shut the fuck up about it, since you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Slashdot Mirror
Macromedia already announced that FlashLite (the version for mobile phones) will support SVG-T directly.
Beating a dead horse:
Yeah, I'm sure some of you have magical instant-loading PDF viewers of some sort, but for those of us stuck on sluggish Windows machines using the incredibly-slow-to-load, lock-up-my-computer-while-it's-loading, Adobe Acrobat Reader...
could we please add a [PDF] warning to links to PDFs?
It may not be *quite* as bad as goatse, but it still merits a warning...
Frankly, I don't give a shit about baseball, but it's food for thought. Consider this:
What if there was an illegal supplement you could take that would dramatically increase your programming ability? If it let you double your salary, would you accept a little risk... say, increased risk of brain cancer down the road?
OK, now what if a substantial number of your peers were using it... so much so that you might have trouble finding work, or at least have to accept a reduced salary, if you were unable or unwilling to use it as well?
Maybe the typical Slashdot reader won't care, but we're saddled with Outlook/Exchange at my company, which are big, slow, resource-hungry, funky piles of poo IMHO.
:-)
So if this will end up helping improve those in any way, I'm in favor of it
Wish I had mod points to mod you up.
As a rule, I avoid modding up Anon Cowards, but in this case, I'll make an exception.
Hope I never have to work with your code.
Doh! Ya got me there.
Re: "If our implementation differs from the spec, our implementation is correct, the spec is wrong", no such statement is there, probably because it's unnecessary, under the circumstances....
I rest my case :-)
No argument here.
The thing is, there is not spyware being included with the Flash download -- RTFA and all will be made clear, but in a nutshell: you are given the option (checked by default) to also download and install the Yahoo Toolbar.
Nothing's being installed secretly. Nothing is being installed without the user's explicit knowledge and consent. And regardless of your opinion of the usefulness of Yahoo Toolbar, I don't think any reputable authority is suggesting that it is "spyware". (In fact, it actually claims to include antispyware features, IIRC...)
Actually, Flash content can be made *more* accessible than HTML content when authored properly.
i ty /features/flash/faq.htmlo m/macromedia/accessibility /
No, really.
http://www.macromedia.com/macromedia/accessibil
http://www.macromedia.c
http://download.macromedia.com/pub/flash/flash_fil e_format_specification.pdf
Ahem... even by Slashdot standards, that's pretty sad.
Don't wanna pay for it? Don't use it.
Wanna use it? Figure out how to pay for it.
My, that's a useful comment.
Look, I work for Macromedia, so I'm hardly a disinterested observer, but saying "Flash blows" (or "technology X blows", for that matter) is hardly what I'd call a useful contribution to this discussion.
Dislike Flash because it's not open-source and thus is unacceptable to your personal philosophy? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because it isn't available for your platform of choice (eg, 64-bit Linux)? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because it (like every other web technology) can be misused to make really annoying ads? Fine, that's a point you should make.
Dislike Flash because of some other, specific reason? Fine, that's a point you should make.
But for all the folks out there who simply have juvenile comments on the order of "Flash sucks"... well, I guess I just don't understand what you think you're contributing to the topic.
(For the record: yeah, I have AdBlock installed in Firefox, to block annoying ads of all sorts.)
Yep. IANAB (I am not a businessman), I am just a humble engineer, but I have this crazy idea that an industry that suddenly finds that its cost-of-goods has dropped to essentially zero (or reasonably close) should be dancing about, singing hallelujah. As someone pointed out, the music industry seems to think it's in the business of selling small, round, plastic discs.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, piracy and all that. It happens. Deal with it. The software industry has.
IMHO, the prices are too high already, at least for me.
At a buck a track, I *might* consider buying 'em if they were losslessly encoded at at-least CD quality, and included metadata, "liner notes", etc... basically all the goods I can get at roughly the same price in a physical CD.
But in a lossy, DRM-infested mess... why the hell would I pay the same amount?
If they get the price down to 25 cents... or maybe even 50!... then I might consider it. Until then, it's back to the used-CD bins at Amoeba for me.
He may be "qualified", but he's still a reprehensible person.
Remember, you can't spell "exploitation" without "EA"....
Perhaps if you weren't Anonymous Coward I might take you seriously. As it is... foo.
Yeah, I worked (past tense) for a "piddly satellite office" (EA Pacific, before they got absorbed into EA LA). I wonder: does "satellite" status imply that it's okay to screw the employees?
OK, I googled for it, and the most recent relevant hit was from March 5, 2003, in the Flash 6 Player for Linux. There was already a patch available. And in any event, even that is not "malware", which implies a deliberate malicious intent.
Don't trust the statistics from Macromedia? Fine, google for independent audits. They will all confirm the over-90% figure.
As far as "locking you in to proprietary formats", that's a valid point to debate, but not the point at issue, which is claiming malware is associated with the Flash Player...
Get a clue. I was a lead engineer at EA, and it sucked. Worst job I ever had. I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that you could possibly have an engineering job there.
There's no malware associated with Flash, nor am I aware of a single active security exploit. Perhaps you could back up this assertion with some evidence?
Or maybe that it's not a standard and nobody really wants to install that crap?
Well over 90% of WWW users would disagree with you.
No, you mis-heard. He meant to say "our values involve lying to the people"...
Is it? I see that it meets the minimum requirements for WoW on the Mac, but will it run it well? In particular, will a 32MB video card provide decent graphics, or would it be one of those usual painful "minimum" specs that will run, but horribly?
Yep, and that's why I haven't bothered going to HDTV yet... no way will I go back to a pre-Tivo existence, and until I can get a Tivo (or genuine equivalent, not the piece-o-crap cable box) that does HD well, there's just no point.
Imagine a Beowulf cluster of electric razors...
Unless you've actually worked at EA -- and clearly, you haven't -- you should probably shut the fuck up about it, since you clearly don't know what the hell you are talking about.
Yeah, this is a troll. But it's worth it.